I sort of give a shit. But I'm not ready to agree to a huge drop off in my standard of living, especially when there is no guarantee the developing world won't just accelerate their usage to counterbalance our cuts.
And a lot of the scare stories aren't that scary. Oh in a 100 years, half of Miami will be underwater. Okay not good. But 100 years ago Miami barely existed.
it's not country, heck not even city, it's just new Prague mayor one year in office without experiences who did pretty much nothing first year and he is confused thinking he is minister of foreign affairs instead of solving daily issues of inhabitants of Prague like main square flooded with drug dealers, illegal old car replicas driving all around city center, electric scooters illegally driving on sidewalks... not I guess resolving these things would not praise his ego in media
Any government will try to censor at some point. The difference is that Western countries have independent judicial branches with the power to stop the government from censoring.
> Censorship can also describe private actions such as Twitter/Facebook refusing some ideas,
That's only true in the vernacular. True "censorship" is only relevant to government suppression. Individuals or private corporations are under no legal obligation to allow certain ideas/topics.
*That is to say, I could perfectly well create some new social network messaging app that specifically does not allow any posts about honeybees, screwdrivers, or Turkey. The government could not prohibit those topics.
> Individuals or private corporations are under no legal obligation to allow certain ideas/topics.
(Though it does become problematic as communication channels are concentrated in a few parties hands, which is why, in part, we have things like the common carrier doctrine. In the end, if one party accumulates enough power and uses it in a way that it is oppressive, whether that party is a government, a warlord, or a corporation).
I'm really not a big fan of this kind of moral relativism. The US (though Donald Trump seems to want to) does not "blacklist" or "censor" to silence political dissent. China does and always has, heavily, to the point of nonsense.
> See if it's possible to earn a profit without selling out.
Unfortunately it's not possible.
Nearly everyone on HN would rather invest in a total stock market index fund, simply because it gives better returns. How much different? Approximately 1% more.
So there you have it. People will sell out for 1% of their portfolio. Myself included.
Oh come on that's not fair. Me choosing a passive index that doesn't pay someone to guess the market again(because I've already chosen my entry into the market) is not me cheaping out.
Is this actually still true? I know initially they exited China because they wouldn't play by the rules, but they definitely re-entered China, and as far as I know, they did it by agreeing to censoring their search results in China.
My thought is that it's ok to deal with China as long as they play by our rules not their rules (such as censorship). If they see that they can still operate successfully under a system with freedom of speech, maybe they won't be so against it.
But yes, you do have to be careful not to let them become a large enough percentage of revenue that the company would be in danger if China started threatening to pull out.
I agree that if you don't want to beholden to foreign rules, then don't become dependent on foreign markets. But what is this "our rules" business? Google lobbying rules that's currently clashing with the EU. Or US foreign policy rules?
And who are you to say if the machine's output (ie, mindset) is to be trusted?
Machines are much less prone to bias than humans, that's for sure.